| Paying for Advertisements I look at how much of each web page is now an advertisement. Anywhere between 5 and 95%. And you never know what you're getting until you're already there. If they want to initialize usage caps, then they need to get rid of the ads, or have them not count towards usage. I have NO desire to pay to see advertisements. The reason I have to put up with the ads in the first place is to 'cut costs' in order to make content available. From my point of view, most ads just slow the download time of web pages, bringing the internet to a crawl in many cases. I remember when the internet was 'advertisement free', and what a lovely world it was. Don't get me wrong, I don't entirely mind some ads. Without them, CBS probably wouldn't be able to make many of their shows viewable online for free, for example. But to make me PAY to see ads, especially when many web pages are 50% or more advertisements that I have no control over... I really don't think it's fair, no fairer than the state coming after me for ~$12,000 in back property taxes on a $1,000 house trailer I sold 15 years ago. Who really owns that $1,000 trailer, that someone must pay the government ~$12,000 for the right to have 'owned' it for 15 years? |
|
andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA | Remember when people were called thieves if they used ad blockers? Now we're bandwidth hogs if we don't. Damned if you do... |
|
|
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | said by andre2:Remember when people were called thieves if they used ad blockers? Now we're bandwidth hogs if we don't. Damned if you do... Stop being silly. The ISP's do not control what content providers put out for you to visit. Its YOUR traffic, not theirs. The ads, that you like to block, often are what keeps that site up and running for you to visit in the first place.
These arguments here are becoming really silly. |
|
andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA | said by fiberguy:said by andre2:Remember when people were called thieves if they used ad blockers? Now we're bandwidth hogs if we don't. Damned if you do... Stop being silly. The ISP's do not control what content providers put out for you to visit. Its YOUR traffic, not theirs. The ads, that you like to block, often are what keeps that site up and running for you to visit in the first place. This is one of the major problems with caps. People don't have total control over how much traffic they generate - it's not obvious how much is going to be generated by visiting cnn.com, for example. When I go there, I do it to read, not to have video ads downloaded in the background, even though I never watch them. Currently I don't bother blocking ads, since I'm not subject to a cap, but if a cap was imposed that would change. |
|
| reply to AnonName
Correction: after speaking with my parents, 15 years of back taxes was ~$2100 on a house trailer 'appraised' at ~$900, although it's actual sale value was $500 (local market, 15 years ago). How can someone owe the government MORE in taxes that the face value of what something is worth? Who owns that house trailer (and every single piece of 'property' in this entire country)?
It's still wrong to have to pay for unsolicited ads, just as it would be wrong to make people pay for using their cable TV once they've already paid to have it. It's like saying, "your TV is on 20 hours a day, his is only on 2 hours a day, so now we're gonna have to charge you more, sorry."
Just wanted to make a correction about taxes... |
|
bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK | reply to fiberguy
Evidently you have not heard of DPI. |
|
andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA
1 edit | said by bjbrock:Evidently you have not heard of DPI. Could you elaborate? Presumably you're not talking about "dots per inch". You might be talking about "deep packet inspection", but if so I'm not sure what the relevance is.
Edit: Never mind, I didn't realize you were replying to fiberguy, not me. |
|
 fozngoofPremium
join:2003-07-08
Temple, TX | reply to AnonName
said by AnonName :
It's like saying, "your TV is on 20 hours a day, his is only on 2 hours a day, so now we're gonna have to charge you more, sorry."
This one quote is the best analogy I have heard yet.
IMO there is little to no difference between using your TV/Cable/Sat and surfing the web.
This is what I want someone to debate. Why is it any different? |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to andre2
It doesn't matter as his post was irrelevant to what I said. The point I am making is simple... you can't hold the ISP hostage for your own use of the internet. If you go to CNN and there is stuff you don't want, that's your problem, not the ISP's. If you go to a website and there are ads, they were transferred to you, you assume the traffic you downloaded.
To think that you can now pick and chose what traffic you want to have.. ie: the "If I have to pay for the bandwidth or am going to be capped, then I don't want the ads" stuff is silly! Data is data... you download it, no matter if you wanted it or not, it counts against your use.
I could care less about DPI, or anything else anyone could say.. keeping on TOPIC which was about the ads that people have to see and being counted against their usage is part o life.. my recommendation is 1) get real, or 2) get off the internet. |
|
andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA | said by fiberguy:It doesn't matter as his post was irrelevant to what I said. The point I am making is simple... you can't hold the ISP hostage for your own use of the internet. If you go to CNN and there is stuff you don't want, that's your problem, not the ISP's. If you go to a website and there are ads, they were transferred to you, you assume the traffic you downloaded. By the same token, the sites I visit can't hold me hostage for making me download all of their ads.
said by fiberguy:To think that you can now pick and chose what traffic you want to have.. ie: the "If I have to pay for the bandwidth or am going to be capped, then I don't want the ads" stuff is silly! Data is data... you download it, no matter if you wanted it or not, it counts against your use. You mean I can't, or I shouldn't? I obviously can, since ad blockers exist, and if my ISP (Verizon) implemented low caps, I would use one - unless, of course, either
1) ad blockers are outlawed, or
2) My ISP agreed to work out a way to not count the ad bandwidth, or
3) the advertisers agreed to compensate me for whatever the ISP charged (which they couldn't if the overage charge was well over cost - they have a hard enough time paying a reasonable price).
In practice I don't think there's any reasonable way to implement 2) or 3), or to enforce 1). |
|
| reply to AnonName
Well how about the fact that you can't collect income taxes from the government after 4 years (2004 was last year this April), but they can go after you for 7 during an audit? |
|
